Australian videographer Abraham Joffe has managed to split photographic opinion down the middle yet again with the realization of a long-promised technology – the ability to capture stills from video that are of good enough quality to compete with conventionally shot photographs.
Here is an excerpt from Ian Farrell's article at CPN:

“Stills photography is certainly not dead,” Joffe re-assures. “Resistance can be down to a fear of change or a feeling that something is rocking the boat when a photographer already has a well-established business model. When people say ‘does this make me less of a photographer?’ The answer is ‘no’. If you are skilful at the moment then you’ll be skillful working in this way too.”

Great article, I enjoyed it. Fred thanks for posting.
The boat is hardly rocking IMO, videographers have had this since DSLR video hit the streets with only difference now in resolution of the pulled image and I am not even going back to video film days.
There are way to many limiting factors when shooting video with stills in mind something that technology won't fix for a long long time.

The form factor is way too different between serious video and serious stills BUT I think "stills" cameras will be partly video in the end... we already have some consumer camera that let you roll back a few frames since they are capturing video frame grabs... I could see a serious stills camera grabbing a few frames from after focus lock till finger off the shutter and let you roll back and forward in that subset to grab an image. Think micro video..... and select the keeper in post or on the fly.

The real issue IMO is going to be image management, review and selection.... Think of those red camera frame grabs you see post with great quality but remember there is another terrabyte (ok I overstate it a tad) of fractionally different images from those suckers either side of the frame grab you see posted That is hardly workable for reviewing 400 million images from a wedding each a fraction of a second apart.

I've had my 5D Mkiii for about 6 months now and have to admit I am yet to try the video capabilities out at all. I know its there and I know I've had to pay for it, but as a working photographer I just need the stills. I am aware that stills and video are technologically converging and at some point when I get the time and I have gigabytes to spare I'll check it out. Much as I love watching great film work in documentaries and movies I am yet to be inspired to create my own hand held wobbly home movies

I know what side of the fence I am on - the history of our craft. Call me a luddite (which I am not), call me ignorant to reality (which I am not), but this isn't photography - it dishonours our practice.

We should be allowed to use .410 shotguns in Olympic smallbore target shooting, right? Hell, why not? It'd increase our chances of a bullseye.

Paul Mo wrote:
I know what side of the fence I am on - the history of our craft. Call me a luddite (which I am not), call me ignorant to reality (which I am not), but this isn't photography - it dishonours our practice.

We should be allowed to use .410 shotguns in Olympic smallbore target shooting, right? Hell, why not? It'd increase our chances of a bullseye.

I don't get your analogy at all - this isn't a competition where you are merely forced to one set of rules. At the end of the day you're trying to get the very best stills for your customer, and if it takes frame grabs from videos, so what? Both require exposure to be set properly, framing, editing (of which editing 4k video will take EONS longer than firing up some 18-22 MP stills in Lightroom). Not to mention I can't just let the shutter go to 1/8000 speeds for video; I have to try to get it down to reasonable speeds which normally require ND filters in broad daylight.
Not to mention I don't have AF available in video - it's all manual focus and the struggle to maintain focus is very challenging. Also anyone can fire off a shot with a fast shutter speed and have stability - with video you have to factor in keeping it still.
Yep, photography SURE IS harder than videography...

Shield wrote:
I don't get your analogy at all - this isn't a competition where you are merely forced to one set of rules. At the end of the day you're trying to get the very best stills for your customer, and if it takes frame grabs from videos, so what? Both require exposure to be set properly, framing, editing (of which editing 4k video will take EONS longer than firing up some 18-22 MP stills in Lightroom). Not to mention I can't just let the shutter go to 1/8000 speeds for video; I have to try to get it down to reasonable speeds which normally require ND filters in broad daylight.
Not to mention I don't have AF available in video - it's all manual focus and the struggle to maintain focus is very challenging. Also anyone can fire off a shot with a fast shutter speed and have stability - with video you have to factor in keeping it still.
Yep, photography SURE IS harder than videography......Show more →

I agree 100%. I do both photo and video and video is much harder to get professional results. For sure you can wave around your domestic camcorder, just like you can wave around a P&S camera and get relatively good results, but to get real, proper, true broadcast quality video takes another step up in skills, not just in shooting but also in editing, and then not just in video but in sound as well.

Now, coming back to the video that Fred refers to, I've seen it from several different sources over the course of a month or two (and again today via the CPS mail shot). I would love this, I really would. If it could shoot raw video (like the BMC) then it would be even more awesome! Maybe some time in the future when memory cards are even faster!

I can definitely see a use for this, but the investment is still relatively high for the average photographer, especially the average wedding photographer. The price will come down in time though.

The resolution isn't awesome by today's standards, but it's not so long ago that 4MP-6MP was the de-facto standard for wedding photographers, and many others too.

You will have to keep your shutter speed up to prevent too much motion blur and pick your moments. We already provide stills from the the video where the photographer either missed a special moment or simply wasn't allowed to be in the right position to take the shot. Even so, ad 1080p the resolution isn't great. At 4K it's at least going to be useable!

Out interest though.... any idea where those slip-in albums come from? Anywhere in the UK to buy similar albums?

I find that video rather funny, especially the part when photographers "are amazed" by the quality of the prints coming out of the still grab. Isn't this obvious that taking a still from the video (shot at least at 24 frames per second) will produce a good quality photograph?
Conclusion that should be taken from this video is that even a 8 megapixel (4k video) frame can provide excellent results. That's what basically is shown to them

Unfortunately we live in a world where things constantly change and the modern photographer has to learn to evolve and adapt. If that means learning and honing new skills that is all part of the modern age.

There is still room for the traditional type and style photographers, but traditional is subjective word dependent on the time period and who is defining it.

Is traditional the fellow who still shoots film? Also is that 35mm, Medium, or Large Format film?

What about the traditional photographer that worked with Plate cameras?

Photographers like Peter Hurley have used the RED Epic to capture 4k (or 5k?) stills that are better than anything you can pull from a consumer level Canon camera. The RED was designed partly to do both stills and video although it excels (understatement) at doing video well. This is one camera that rivals film and with the new Dragon sensor capable of upwards of 20 stops of dynamic range, it can even exceed the gold standard of film for quality in cinema.

The 1Dc is the first camera that is "somewhat" reasonably priced (in comparison to the $35k RED Epic) that can do this pull stills from video well enough to satisfy most photographers. The problem with the 1Dc is that it doesn't shoot raw. The camera can shoot LOG profiles which are flat and hold more information in the shadows and highlights but it's akin to shooting a large JPEG.

I shoot both stills and video. I've tried to pull stills from 5D2 footage and it looks horrible. Although with the new I-frames in the 5D3 it might look better, but it's still relatively low resolution. The 1Dc can do it well. There are some issues to overcome like shutter speeds being limited to more filmic speeds if you're trying to do the 24p-1/50th shutter thing although that rule can be bent a stop or two without looking too bad. As a photographer who also shoots video this technology interests me. The hangup is the huge data requirements for shooting raw on an Epic or Scarlet or the super pricey UDMA 7 huge cards required to shoot 4k video on the Canon. The technology is getting close but isn't mature enough for a normal Joe to pull this off without spending a ton of money.

Of course. And I didn't mean to sound bitchy, but it's unnerving that stills photogs would have boners for this sort of thing. Perhaps in the not-to-distant future we'll need new forums for this hybrid practice.

I am always going to defend our practice however hypocritical I may sound using a 1D3 at 10fps. This is, for now, mostly theoretical. But I would hate to see our craft devolve into hi res video capture and powerful computing to sift for a decent shot.

It's a specialised practice that does have useful applications in science - forensics, biology, et al - so I am not worried for now.

Hypothetically, if wedding photog A has her 5D and she's shooting stills, yet photog B has a RED and is rolling to later picks frames... I mean that's kinda lame isn't it?

At least a couple of the local paper's photographers are pulling stills from video. It's to the point now where assignments are frequently stills and video and it can be pain to shoot both efficiently. Shooting just video and pulling a 1080P rez still satisfies print edition needs (2MP is fine for this - remember the original D1?) while more immediately fulfilling web requirements.

I would find the 1DC way more compelling if RAW 4K was an option, though the file storage requirements would be insane compared to what I'm currently dealing with (probably around 50TB of HDDs kicking around at the moment as it is - and that's just stills).

I just see this as a way videographers can also provide stills from the footage they take at an acceptable resolution. I can't see it having any impact on photographers who have no interest in video at all. It's not like everyone is suddenly going to start shooting video, the skillset is completely different. Especially when it comes to editing as already mentioned.

Paul Mo wrote:
Hypothetically, if wedding photog A has her 5D and she's shooting stills, yet photog B has a RED and is rolling to later picks frames... I mean that's kinda lame isn't it?

Why is it "lame"? That's not really a logical response now is it? I shoot stills with my 5D3 but since I also shoot video it would be a perfect solution to get both without having to switch cameras and settings. Regardless of the tool you use to get the image it's the IMAGE that counts isn't it? The photographer is still composing, exposing, framing, pulling the trigger, etc. The camera is a tool and shooting short clips is a shooting technique. IMO there is little that differentiates using a 1D3 at 10 fps and a RED at 24 fps other than frame rate. If you're a sports shooter 24 fps would absolutely be a huge advantage. They're riding the shutter at full burst mode anyway to get "the moment". Event work is just a somewhat toned down version of that.

Paul Mo wrote:
I am always going to defend our practice however hypocritical I may sound using a 1D3 at 10fps.

Why bother with 10fps? You only needed one shot right? Why wait until you get them all back to a powerful computer to sift through them all looking for the right frame? Just take that one frame to start with

Paul Mo wrote:
Hypothetically, if wedding photog A has her 5D and she's shooting stills, yet photog B has a RED and is rolling to later picks frames... I mean that's kinda lame isn't it?

Kinda lame in what way? But, let's take that example - since you brought it up, because it's a good one.

Last year we shot a wedding (photo + video) where the B+G decided they'd both wear contact lenses instead of their usual glasses - big mistake! Overall 60% of the stills through the day had one or the other blinking (eyes closed, or half closed). Getting a shot of just the two of them on their own with all eyes open was a challenge, so you can imagine how horrible it was with bigger groups!

During the ceremony, getting a shot with both their eyes open was almost impossible, yet we were able to pull lots of stills from the video because of the extra frames. Since they were standing fairly still, the lower shutter speed (1/50) really wasn't an issue.

On the flip side, photos can generally be printed to a much larger size - at this point in time - and taking portraits using stills is always much easier, and people certainly respond to the 'click' of a camera where on video there is no specific point of finality (no click to say it's taken).

Neither stills nor video are perfect for all situations. So fear not, no one is going to make you use a video camera to shoot your stills for some time to come